More then 90 million people in United states family 4 living on less 21,000 a year

[California Girl]

Why won't the Republcians just admit they hate the middle class? Just say the words.

rdean gets lost when the discussion does not follow the talking points. He drank all the Obama Kool-Aid laced with stupid. He starts sounding like Obama when the teleprompter goes blank. Uh uh uh uh uh uh. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw"]UH[/ame]

I have given out too much rep in the past 24 hours, but I'll slap some on ya for that.

 

[blu]

I have given out too much rep in the past 24 hours, but I'll slap some on ya for that.

are all of your posts partisan drivel or just 9 out of 10?

 

[CMike]

The best incentive the government can give for a corporation to send jobs overseas is to make it harder for an American company to do business in America.

Exactly right. If Obama wants to insure jobs overseas he should continue the same route he is on, which is to make it harder for businesses to do business in america.

Think it through. If jobs are moved overseas and no one here HAS a job, then those goods won't be sold here. THAT makes it more difficult to do business here. After all, no one has the money to buy anything. People with jobs here have money to buy stuff, HERE.

And that is why Obama should stop making it difficult for businesses to do business in the US.

 

[CMike]

What is destroying the Middle Class is the enormous tax cuts for the rich and moving jobs overseas to countries who have a public option so companies don't have to pay for health care.

Unable to explain how Republican tax cuts are destroying the middle class, rdean-tard offers up another cup of Obama Kool-aid laced with public option health care.

how does moving manufacturing jobs overseas help the middle class who are now unemployed because of it?

It doesn't. That's why Obama and his minions should decreases taxes and burdensome regulations so businesses don't move jobs overseas.

 

[blu]

Exactly right. If Obama wants to insure jobs overseas he should continue the same route he is on, which is to make it harder for businesses to do business in america.

Think it through. If jobs are moved overseas and no one here HAS a job, then those goods won't be sold here. THAT makes it more difficult to do business here. After all, no one has the money to buy anything. People with jobs here have money to buy stuff, HERE.

And that is why Obama should stop making it difficult for businesses to do business in the US.

it was a problem well before obama but you are too partisan to know that

 

[ItHappens]

Think it through. If jobs are moved overseas and no one here HAS a job, then those goods won't be sold here. THAT makes it more difficult to do business here. After all, no one has the money to buy anything. People with jobs here have money to buy stuff, HERE.

And that is why Obama should stop making it difficult for businesses to do business in the US.

it was a problem well before obama but you are too partisan to know that

Websters is going to have to re-write its definition of "Change" before this administration is done.

 

[Vanquish]

Unable to explain how Republican tax cuts are destroying the middle class, rdean-tard offers up another cup of Obama Kool-aid laced with public option health care.

how does moving manufacturing jobs overseas help the middle class who are now unemployed because of it?

It doesn't. That's why Obama and his minions should decreases taxes and burdensome regulations so businesses don't move jobs overseas.

So Obama should give businesses free reign just so they'll stay in the U.S.? You realize that the businesses wont necessarily increase job numbers and without consumer protections the U.S. consumer gets screwed, right?

We obviously need to make it easier and more profitable to do business here in the U.S., but part of the cost of caring about our people is that we have to enforce worker and consumer protections. Someone alluded to child labor. Perfect example. We've outlawed it...but getting rid of that restriction could drastically lower costs to produce here in the states.

What a LOT of people are missing is that the entire planet is in the midst of one of the greatest jockeyings of equilibrium that has ever happened. And we might be on the wrong side of it...no matter what we do. We might just have to sit here and take it.

Worse conditions in other parts of the world mean they can offer goods at a cheaper rate. Their cost of living and production are low...and that makes them more competitive. We pay for our high quality of life (read as: consumer, worker, and environmental protections) by being less competitive. Until the rest of the world catches up...we're going to be fighting an uphill battle.

 

[uscitizen]

If the government would get the hell out of the way and just let the private sector work, they would provide the jobs.

There is nothing wrong with being part of the government but we simply cannot afford to have more and more people working for the government. Because we have to pay them from taxes and, as you say, they get paid more and have higher benefits. Who the hell do you think pays for that?

Umm I dont think we have re-regulated anything yet. So why did not the de-regulations work? Or why did they quit working?

Learn more about economics, then ask me the same question. Because I'm not here to teach you, I'm here to discuss it with people who understand it. It appears that very few actually understand economics at all.

True especially the experts.

 

[Barb]

California Girl said it the best.

The problem is that the government is in the way of job creation.

If they would get out of the fucking way by confiscating less money, and reducing burdensome regulations we would have a lot more jobs.

The more corporate welfare received, the more layoffs...

This is a list of the 8 corporate welfare recipients that were listed in the first article of the Inquirer series, comparing corporate welfare received to the number of people layed off in that time (1990-1994).

Welfare recieved Employment
GM $110,600,000 -104,000
IBM 58,000,000 -100,000
AT&T 35,000,000 -1,077 * #
GE 25,400,000 -80,000
Amoco 23,600,000 -8,300 *
DuPont 15,200,000 -29,961
Motorola 15,100,000 +9,600 *
Citicorp 9,600,000 -15,700

* exceptions to the trend
# AT&T layed off 40,000 people shortly after this accounting

see also: Tax Subsidies Reward Corporate Downsizers (Citizens for Tax Justice report)

From: Corporate Welfare Information Center

 

[uscitizen]

how does moving manufacturing jobs overseas help the middle class who are now unemployed because of it?

It doesn't. That's why Obama and his minions should decreases taxes and burdensome regulations so businesses don't move jobs overseas.

So Obama should give businesses free reign just so they'll stay in the U.S.? You realize that the businesses wont necessarily increase job numbers and without consumer protections the U.S. consumer gets screwed, right?

We obviously need to make it easier and more profitable to do business here in the U.S., but part of the cost of caring about our people is that we have to enforce worker and consumer protections. Someone alluded to child labor. Perfect example. We've outlawed it...but getting rid of that restriction could drastically lower costs to produce here in the states.

What a LOT of people are missing is that the entire planet is in the midst of one of the greatest jockeyings of equilibrium that has ever happened. And we might be on the wrong side of it...no matter what we do. We might just have to sit here and take it.

Worse conditions in other parts of the world mean they can offer goods at a cheaper rate. Their cost of living and production are low...and that makes them more competitive. We pay for our high quality of life (read as: consumer, worker, and environmental protections) by being less competitive. Until the rest of the world catches up...we're going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Yep, we are going to have to learn to be satisfied with less.

 

[CMike]

It doesn't. That's why Obama and his minions should decreases taxes and burdensome regulations so businesses don't move jobs overseas.

So Obama should give businesses free reign just so they'll stay in the U.S.? You realize that the businesses wont necessarily increase job numbers and without consumer protections the U.S. consumer gets screwed, right?

We obviously need to make it easier and more profitable to do business here in the U.S., but part of the cost of caring about our people is that we have to enforce worker and consumer protections. Someone alluded to child labor. Perfect example. We've outlawed it...but getting rid of that restriction could drastically lower costs to produce here in the states.

What a LOT of people are missing is that the entire planet is in the midst of one of the greatest jockeyings of equilibrium that has ever happened. And we might be on the wrong side of it...no matter what we do. We might just have to sit here and take it.

Worse conditions in other parts of the world mean they can offer goods at a cheaper rate. Their cost of living and production are low...and that makes them more competitive. We pay for our high quality of life (read as: consumer, worker, and environmental protections) by being less competitive. Until the rest of the world catches up...we're going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Yep, we are going to have to learn to be satisfied with less.

Speak for yourself.

 

[CMike]

California Girl said it the best.

The problem is that the government is in the way of job creation.

If they would get out of the fucking way by confiscating less money, and reducing burdensome regulations we would have a lot more jobs.

The more corporate welfare received, the more layoffs...

This is a list of the 8 corporate welfare recipients that were listed in the first article of the Inquirer series, comparing corporate welfare received to the number of people layed off in that time (1990-1994).

Welfare recieved Employment
GM $110,600,000 -104,000
IBM 58,000,000 -100,000
AT&T 35,000,000 -1,077 * #
GE 25,400,000 -80,000
Amoco 23,600,000 -8,300 *
DuPont 15,200,000 -29,961
Motorola 15,100,000 +9,600 *
Citicorp 9,600,000 -15,700

* exceptions to the trend
# AT&T layed off 40,000 people shortly after this accounting

see also: Tax Subsidies Reward Corporate Downsizers (Citizens for Tax Justice report)

From: Corporate Welfare Information Center

Letting companies keep more of their own money is not corporate welfare. It's simply the government confiscating less money.

 

[Againsheila]

If the government would get the hell out of the way and just let the private sector work, they would provide the jobs.

There is nothing wrong with being part of the government but we simply cannot afford to have more and more people working for the government. Because we have to pay them from taxes and, as you say, they get paid more and have higher benefits. Who the hell do you think pays for that?

Umm I dont think we have re-regulated anything yet. So why did not the de-regulations work? Or why did they quit working?

Learn more about economics, then ask me the same question. Because I'm not here to teach you, I'm here to discuss it with people who understand it. It appears that very few actually understand economics at all.

It was a good question and I've taken both macro and micro economics. Supply and demand are what I remember most. Well, we've shipped our jobs overseas and imported aliens to do the low skilled jobs that are left so of course our wages at the bottom rungs of the ladder have decreased. Meanwhile, those aliens are shipping the money they get paid home, taken it out of our economy. The unemployed don't have anything to pump into the failing economy so things are getting worse. It was only a matter of time before the sh*t hit the fan, so to speak.

We need to go back to corporate laws pre 1970's and then, maybe our country will improve again.

 

[uscitizen]

So Obama should give businesses free reign just so they'll stay in the U.S.? You realize that the businesses wont necessarily increase job numbers and without consumer protections the U.S. consumer gets screwed, right?

We obviously need to make it easier and more profitable to do business here in the U.S., but part of the cost of caring about our people is that we have to enforce worker and consumer protections. Someone alluded to child labor. Perfect example. We've outlawed it...but getting rid of that restriction could drastically lower costs to produce here in the states.

What a LOT of people are missing is that the entire planet is in the midst of one of the greatest jockeyings of equilibrium that has ever happened. And we might be on the wrong side of it...no matter what we do. We might just have to sit here and take it.

Worse conditions in other parts of the world mean they can offer goods at a cheaper rate. Their cost of living and production are low...and that makes them more competitive. We pay for our high quality of life (read as: consumer, worker, and environmental protections) by being less competitive. Until the rest of the world catches up...we're going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Yep, we are going to have to learn to be satisfied with less.

Speak for yourself.

Nope not myself, I have plenty of money to last me the rest of my life.

 

[California Girl]

I have given out too much rep in the past 24 hours, but I'll slap some on ya for that.

are all of your posts partisan drivel or just 9 out of 10?

I need not ask if yours are all mindless drivel, I can state is as fact.

 

[California Girl]

So Obama should give businesses free reign just so they'll stay in the U.S.? You realize that the businesses wont necessarily increase job numbers and without consumer protections the U.S. consumer gets screwed, right?

We obviously need to make it easier and more profitable to do business here in the U.S., but part of the cost of caring about our people is that we have to enforce worker and consumer protections. Someone alluded to child labor. Perfect example. We've outlawed it...but getting rid of that restriction could drastically lower costs to produce here in the states.

What a LOT of people are missing is that the entire planet is in the midst of one of the greatest jockeyings of equilibrium that has ever happened. And we might be on the wrong side of it...no matter what we do. We might just have to sit here and take it.

Worse conditions in other parts of the world mean they can offer goods at a cheaper rate. Their cost of living and production are low...and that makes them more competitive. We pay for our high quality of life (read as: consumer, worker, and environmental protections) by being less competitive. Until the rest of the world catches up...we're going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Yep, we are going to have to learn to be satisfied with less.

Speak for yourself.

Don't be unrealistic, CMike. Liberals can't think for themselves so how are they going to speak for themselves.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep, we are going to have to learn to be satisfied with less.

Speak for yourself.

Don't be unrealistic, CMike. Liberals can't think for themselves so how are they going to speak for themselves.

Just calm down and listen to Rush a bit, you will be fine.

 

[Barb]

California Girl said it the best.

The problem is that the government is in the way of job creation.

If they would get out of the fucking way by confiscating less money, and reducing burdensome regulations we would have a lot more jobs.

The more corporate welfare received, the more layoffs...

This is a list of the 8 corporate welfare recipients that were listed in the first article of the Inquirer series, comparing corporate welfare received to the number of people layed off in that time (1990-1994).

Welfare recieved Employment
GM $110,600,000 -104,000
IBM 58,000,000 -100,000
AT&T 35,000,000 -1,077 * #
GE 25,400,000 -80,000
Amoco 23,600,000 -8,300 *
DuPont 15,200,000 -29,961
Motorola 15,100,000 +9,600 *
Citicorp 9,600,000 -15,700

* exceptions to the trend
# AT&T layed off 40,000 people shortly after this accounting

see also: Tax Subsidies Reward Corporate Downsizers (Citizens for Tax Justice report)

From: Corporate Welfare Information Center

Letting companies keep more of their own money is not corporate welfare. It's simply the government confiscating less money.

Doesn't create more jobs, which is what you claimed, and there's more to corporate welfare than low or negative taxes, there are direct subsidies involved, and a host of other giveaways.

 

[Douger]

The "war" has been from the Republicans on the "middle class".

Listen to Republicans plan for health care - "tax credits". Yea, give a tax credit to these poor people and they will use it to buy health insurance - Oh yea, sure they would.

Why do Republcians hate the "middle class"? The "middle class" is the "real base" of the US.

Correction.
" was the "real base"

 

[uscitizen]

The "war" has been from the Republicans on the "middle class".

Listen to Republicans plan for health care - "tax credits". Yea, give a tax credit to these poor people and they will use it to buy health insurance - Oh yea, sure they would.

Why do Republcians hate the "middle class"? The "middle class" is the "real base" of the US.

Correction.
" was the "real base"

Pretty much, we don't seem to have much base lately.